Match Statistics - 2010

2010 APPIC Match Statistics

Match Report from the APPIC Board of Directors

February 22, 2010

We are pleased to report that 2,823 applicants were successfully matched to internship positions. A total of 46% of all applicants who obtained a position matched to their first choice internship program, more than two-thirds (68%) received one of their top two choices, and four-in-five (81%) received one of their top three choices.

A total of 846 applicants were not matched to an internship position, while 278 positions remained unfilled. The number of unmatched applicants this year was identical to the number seen in the 2009 Match.

Compared to the 2009 Match, the number of registered applicants increased by 65 (1.7%) to a record 3,890 applicants, while the number of internship positions increased by 50 (1.6%) to a record 3,101 positions. Furthermore, the number of accredited positions in the Match decreased by two, while the number of non-accredited positions increased by 52.

Here is a summary of the changes in numbers of applicants and positions as compared to the 2009 APPIC Match:

Applicants:

Registered for the Match

+65

Withdrew or did not submit ranks

-6

Matched

+71

Unmatched

No Chg

Positions:

Offered in the Match

+50

Filled

+29

Unfilled

-21

Following is an eight year comparison of the 2002 and 2010 Match statistics:

2002

2010

8-YEAR CHANGE

Participating Sites

610

674

+64 (+10%)

Positions Offered

2,752

3,101

+349 (+13%)

Positions Filled

2,410

2,823

+413 (+17%)

Positions Unfilled

342

278

-64 (-19%)

Registered Applicants

3,073

3,890

+817 (+27%)

Withdrawn Applicants

231

221

-10 ( - 4%)

Matched Applicants

2,410

2,823

+413 (+17%)

Unmatched Applicants

432

846

+414 (+96%)

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMS

PARTICIPATION

Training Sites Participating in the Match

674

Programs Participating in the Match

1,176

Positions Offered in the Match

3,101

NOTE: A "training site" can offer more than one "program" in the Match. Each "program" was identified in the Match by a separate 6-digit code number.

MATCH RESULTS

Positions

Filled in the Match

2,823

(91%)

Remaining Unfilled

278

(9%)

Programs

Filled in the Match

1,013

(86%)

With Unfilled Positions

163

(14%)

NOTE: 30 programs at 25 sites submitted fewer ranks than the number of positions available. As a result, no ranks were submitted for 58 positions, which remained unfilled.

APA- OR CPA- ACCREDITED POSITIONS

Filled in the Match

2,246

(97%)

Remaining Unfilled

74

(3%)

Total

2,320

NON-ACCREDITED POSITIONS

Filled in the Match

577

(74%)

Remaining Unfilled

204

(26%)

Total

781

Non-accredited positions represented 73.4% of all unfilled positions.

RANKINGS

Average Number of Applicants Ranked Per Position Offered for Each Program:

Programs Filling All Positions

8.3

Programs With Unfilled Positions

2.8

All Programs

7.5

Each Registered Applicant Was Ranked by an Average of 5.3 Different Programs.

APPLICANTS

PARTICIPATION

Applicants Registered in the Match

3,890

Applicants Who Withdrew or Did Not Submit Ranks

221

Applicants Participating in the Match(includes 26 individuals who participated in the Match as 13 "couples")

3,669

MATCH RESULTS

Applicants Matched

2,823

(77%)

Participating Applicants Not Matched

846

(23%)

MATCH RESULTS BY RANK NUMBER ON APPLICANT'S LIST(PERCENTAGES MAY NOT TOTAL TO 100 DUE TO ROUNDING ERRORS)

Rank

Number of Applicants

1

1,295

(46%)

2

614

(22%)

3

373

(13%)

4

201

( 7%)

5

135

( 5%)

6

80

( 3%)

7

52

( 2%)

8

25

( 1%)

9

14

( 0%)

10 or higher

34

( 1%)

Total

2,823

(100%)

RANKINGS

Average Number of Rankings Submitted Per Applicant:

Matched Applicants

7.8

Unmatched Applicants

4.4

Overall

7.0

Each Position Was Ranked by an Average of 8.3 Applicants.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM RANKINGS

The following report contains additional statistics on how successful programs were, on average, in matching with applicants.

There are several important issues that must be considered in attempting to analyze program success based on the rank numbers of matched applicants.

DEFINITIONAL PROBLEMS: Because each applicant submitted a single Rank Order List in order to match to a single position, it is easy to identify his or her "first choice," "second choice," etc. However, for an internship program, determining first or second choice applicants is a far more difficult and complex task. First, many programs attempt to fill several positions; if a program has three positions to fill, an applicant ranked third by that program can in effect be considered a "first choice" for purposes of the Match. Furthermore, a significant number of sites submitted multiple Rank Order Lists for a single program, sometimes ranking the same applicant on different Lists with different rank numbers. Also, the reversion of unfilled positions between lists adds a further complication to this analysis.

We worked closely with National Matching Services in an attempt to resolve these difficulties and to develop a reasonable method of presenting this data.

STANDARDIZED RANKINGS: For the purposes of this analysis, we converted each site's rankings to a "standardized rank." This is best explained by example: if the number of positions to be filled from a Rank Order List was three, then the first three applicants on this List were considered to be "first choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 1. The next three applicants on that List were defined as "second choice" applicants and given a standardized rank of 2. And so on.

MATCH RESULTS BY STANDARDIZED RANK NUMBER ON INTERNSHIP PROGRAM LIST(PERCENTAGES MAY NOT TOTAL TO 100 DUE TO ROUNDING ERRORS)

Standardized Rank

# of Applicants Matched

1

1,034

(37%)

2

788

(28%)

3

486

(17%)

4

256

(9%)

5

127

(4%)

6

46

(2%)

7

33

(1%)

8

24

(1%)

9

12

(0%)

10 or higher

17

(1%)

Total

2,823

(100%)

To interpret this chart: of all positions that were filled in the Match, 37% were filled with "first choice" applicants (as defined above), 28% with "second choice" applicants, and so on.

Furthermore, 65% were filled with "first" or "second" choice applicants, while 82% were filled with "third choice" applicants or better.

Of course, comparing these numbers to applicants' Match statistics should be done with extreme caution, given the significantly different ways in how "first choice", "second choice", etc. were defined in each analysis.